Daily Archives: October 20, 2013

Township Board approves Supervisor Gonser’s “personal” legal fee

Leave a reply

As reported on other posts/ pages on this website, Supervisor Gonser had requested an opinion from the Attorney General on the Blossom Ridge Development.  The Board had originally authorized that request, but later rescinded it.  After being rescinded, Gonser continued to pursue getting an unauthorized opinion, first acting as the Supervisor and then “as an individual”.  

The Township attorney billed the Township for this service.  Trustee Keyes challenged the billing for this service.  At the October 8th Board meeting, Trustee Keyes explained why it was inappropriate for the Township to pay for Gonsers’ personal legal fee.  She made a motion to have him repay the Township.  The Board rejected her motion on a 5 to 2 vote.  

Trustee Keyes and McKay were the only ones who voted to have Gonser repay the Township.  Even though Supervisor Gonser personally benefited from the defeat of this motion, he voted on the motion.  He did not abstain as would have been appropriate.

On April 15th, the author of this post raised questions regarding Gonser’s authority to make the request.  Here is a copy of the ‘logic tree’ I used in my comments at that meeting:

Questions on authority for AG opinion

At that meeting, he stated, he sent the memo “as an individual”.  The copies of the two memos sent, as well as the billing from the Township Attorney, indicate that Gonser did not send the letter “as an individual” until 8 days after he claimed he had sent it.  He was clearly trying to ‘cover his tracks’.  

I have attached a file that is a ‘fact check’ comparing Gonser’s statement at the September 24th meeting, and previous Board meeting comments and other supporting documentation.  Here is the “fact check’ document:

Fact check for AG opinion

Yet with all this as background, the Board agreed to have the Township pay for his personal legal fee.   What could be the motivation for their approval since they had previously rescinded the authority?  Their approval clearly appears to violate their oath of office.

Why is this important to the Citizens of Oakland Township?  With all the facts presented by Trustee Keyes, there does not seem to be any justified reason for the Trustee’s approving the payment for Gonser’s legal fees. What hidden agenda’s were driving their decision?  Was there a decision made outside an open meeting authorizing Gonser to proceed with the Attorney General request?  Gonsers’ vote on the matter is clearly a conflict of interest, and violates his oath of office.

Richard MIchalski

Marshview Connector Parking Lot Subcommittee Meeting – Cooperative, Productive & Troubling

1 Reply

The Oct.16th meeting of the Marshview connector parking lot project subcommittee was cordial, cooperative and productive.  In attendance were:

  • Board of Trustees – Terry Gonser and Maureen Thalmann
  • Parks Commission  –  David Mackley, Joe Peruzzi, Andy Zale
  • Parks Department – Mindy Milos-Dale
  • Paint Creek Trail Commission – David Becker, Kritstin Meyers
  • Oakland Township Safety Paths and Trails Committee – none

The purpose of this subcommittee is to move forward on the plan for a parking lot on two parcels on Orion Road, adjacent to the Paint Creek Trail that are owned by Parks.  The subcommittee was formed because there has been a lot of controversy about this project due to:

  1. The project was launched independently by Supervisor Gonser;
  2. without Board of Trustees authorization;
  3. without Parks Commission authorization;
  4. the assumption that it would be funded with Trails Millage money;
  5. after objections raised at a Planning Commission meeting about funding it with our trails millage Gonser began splitting the expenses between general funds, parks funds and trails funds;
  6. Parks has objected to the use of their funds without their authorization.

After reviewing the first site plan that Gonser had ordered, the committee agreed that a new concept plan is needed that at least studies a number of things that weren’t considered by the current plan.  The committee authorized new work to reflect the feasibility of:

    1. Equestrian use, most importantly room for large horse trailers to park and turn around and maybe even hitching rails;
  1. Possible picnic tables;
  2. Possible playscape;
  3. Possible nature trail loop;
  4. Consideration of using the northern parcel for some or all of the project;
  5. A safer trail down to the Paint Creek Trail.

The bottom line is most of the work Gonser had authorized was a waste of time and money and needs to be re-done.  We did, at least, get a topographical survey of the southern parcel that will be useful.

Gonser then spoke to the meeting about an alternative plan sketched by an engineering firm who agreed to do it without payment.  He said that he couldn’t share the plan with the committee at this time because he had not paid for it. Gonser said this new plan could be done for $25k rather than the $100k that township’s engineering firm, PEA, had estimated.

  • Mindy replied saying she has done other parking lots of similar size where the gravel alone cost $20k so she thought Gonser’s firm should take another look at it.   Gonser said he could get the gravel for free. 
  • The Committee agreed that Supervisor Gonser could contact his unnamed firm and ask them to submit a formal proposal.

The point to be made here is that Supervisor Gonser, although he was amiable and agreeable, continued to attempt to dominate the process by getting ahead of everyone and going his own way.

Jim Foulkrod